The essay written by Katha Pollitt, titled, “What’s wrong with gay marriage” is an intriguing one. At first, the author, explains the notion that marriage and procreation do not necessarily go hand-in- hand. And later, she carefully interprets the true meaning of marriage; by stating there is a separation of church and state. Most importantly, the author speaks to her audience in a clear and logical manner; without adding personal biases. Although the essay may seem to have deterministic view on social behavior. Nonetheless, I believe that does not disqualify the series of argument which she makes.
Pollit expounds on the true meaning of marriage; by looking at the history of marriage. For a period of time “polygyny was the rule;” and continues …show more content…
Rather, it is something deeper more genuine a union which does not need to follow social order. It is about two people loving each other for how they naturally know how to. This makes the reader come to the understanding that gay marriage is not an attention seeking behavior; but instead a sincere desire for another. Pollit concludes by saying the only objection to gay marriage is based on religious prejudice. Which means that there is no logical reasoning behind people disapproval of gay marriage. Rather, it is merely something which someone else’s religion dislikes. At the end, marriage is not defined by religion; but instead interpreted by the government. Even if the “holy book tells you to wed all the girls in apartment 3G” you are still are not allowed to do so.
Regarding the controversial issue of same sex marriage. It seems that Pollit is trying to justify same sex marriage by comparing it to a legal substandard marriage (A man can marry a woman no matter how ill acquainted). In the essay of gay “Marriage” societal suicide by Charles Colson, he takes the same approach by disregarding all the issues of traditional marriage. Both of these essays are guilty of distorting the readers perception of what is a good marriage by vastly exaggerating and ignoring many
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Susie O'Brien's article 'It's time to honour gay couples and allow them to marry' (The Advertiser, November 20, 2010, p. 27) is arguing the side of pro-gay marriage in the debate of marriage equality. This argument is made using ethos, logos, pathos and suggestive language as to guide you to her side of the argument. Susie begins by talking about herself and her experience on the subject of whether or not she had a choice when growing up straight or gay. She demonstrates her knowledge on the topic by referencing her personal history; however not truly showing why her opinion should be listening to rather than others. Her argument is very personally based and draws examples such as herself and her family or friends.
Corvino’s essay “Homosexuality and the PIB Argument” elaborates on the disagreements between certain parties, such as natural law lawyers and other philosophers, pertaining to homosexuality and the notion that allowing same sex marriage will permit others to practice polygamy, incest, and bestiality (PIB). Corvino insists that when looking upon this argument, one will need to recognize and comprehend all sides of the dispute and thus be able to scrutinize such arguments proficiently. Through the process of analyzing all sides of this notorious disagreement, Corvino hopes to clarify and refute homosexuality and the PIB argument as well as give his own analysis and position on the subject (3). Corvino begins his debate by explaining the PIB
An example of this is shown in Graff’s essay. He states that historically marriage was simply an exchange of land and money, and was often considered as a means to make life easier for both parties, “the phrase ‘traditional marriage’ […] should really only mean marriage for money” (346). Another argument that Graff deconstructs is that marriage was not even considered the ‘sacred’ exchange that it is today, until nearly “1215” (346), nearly a thousand years after Christianity was first created. Graff finishes his argument by claiming that marriage is a construct that has always been changing, and will always be changing. It has never been one stone cut definition, and it never will be, marriage equality is just another change in the construct.
I am against the idea od gay marriage. When going against gay rights, most people bring up topics on thing like children, civil rights, and the major topic, Religion. I do agree that gay marriage does have an affect on a child, it denies them either a father or a mother, and when it comes to religion, I guess it questions how much faith you have in your religion. But the thing with society is that they have to get their point straight. We live in today’s society, which looks down on abortion, but then at the same time, treat teenage parents as failures.
Also, the main topics included ethical norms to various issues, such as military, sexual diseases and same-sex marriage. Mohr talked about giving solutions to inequality, which is related to religious, political and social issues. Also, this book made a research about prejudice and all other forces that affect the social status of gay people. Mohr analyzed the countries that have a negative and strong opinion about gay marriages. His definition of marriage is fulfilling basic social needs no matter what is the sex of your partner.
Marriage is not two men, two women, or two man married to one women or any other combination. The attack against marriage is an attempt to redefine marriage. Marriage equality suggest that we have to expand the definition. It is not an attempt to expand the definition it is to constrict and destroy marriage in the Christological concept between one man and one
Considering the political issues today same-sex marriage controversy serves to be significant as it has not been able to reach its height at the national level. As only 36 states out of 50 legally approve of same-sex marriage (Fausset and Blinder, The NewYork Times.com). Amending the Constitution for same-sex marriage serves to be a huge controversy and a difficult process due to many opinions present within the political and social circuit. Another reason many citizens do not support the idea of same-sex marriage is due to traditional social beliefs and morals. For example, many Americans oppose the idea of same-sex marriage on religious grounds.
Recently, gay marriage was legalized in all 50 states. Most Americans accept it; as America is becoming more open and tolerant of same-sex marriage. They believe that everyone should be able to love and be with whoever they want. On the other hand there are many who wholeheartedly disagree and believe that marriage is exclusively shared between a man and a woman. A county clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky with this belief refused to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple.
This was possibly an attempt to appeal to logos, as O’Brien was trying to make the point that if the government passed the law that eventually people that are currently against gay marriage would come around once they see that it would have little to no effect on their lives. Lastly O’Brien uses statistics from The Bouverie Centre to reassure readers that the opinion she has persuaded them of is true. This is possibly the strongest part of O’Brien’s whole article, despite it not having reference to a particular study as it provides statistical information on the family lives of gay couples in Australia. This is a somewhat strong logical appeal although it would be stronger if O’Brien would have looked at the statistics of heterosexual couples as a parallel to established both sides of family lives and in particular the longevity of relationships. To conclude her piece O’Brien bookends with another attempt to appeal to ethos by using emotive language such as ‘bizarre social experiment’.
He first explained how marriagewas forced upon the Christian community. He then gave the consequencesof gay marriage and how it can affect society. He also gave evidence from experiences to statistics to crack up his point. He then relayedback to what he believed as a Christian which was a married mother and father nurturing children in a stable home. He then ended his essay under hasty generalisation.
When debating the legalization of same sex marriage, religious reasoning and accusations of bigotry often provoke obstinance. Instead of reiterating those arguments, William J. Bennett, a prominent cultural conservative, former secretary of education, and author of The Book of Virtues, focuses on societal effects in his op-ed article, “Against Gay Marriage.” Though Bennett’s piece conveys partiality, it also attempts to discuss this issue scrupulously to ensure readers will consider his argument and perhaps accept his implications. While some of Bennett’s word choices convey tolerance of the gay community, his rhetoric incites readers to accept that preserving society requires marginalizing homosexuals.
Joey Cho Mrs. Middleton English 10 17 October 2016 Persuasive Research Essay Outline Introduction LGBT/ same-sex marriage is one of the most heated and controversial debates in our current society. Unlike the past thousands of years whereas marriage was defined as a legal union between a man and a woman, now the concept of marriage has been extended to a broader context. “Homosexuality” in most cultures is viewed as a disgrace, and it is often considered as a great sin from a religious aspect.
Perry we see the issue regarding the major political issue of the legalization of same-sex marriages. While some individuals rebuke or chastise homosexuality, other individuals will embrace it as just another aspect of life a average norm to be. We must questions the reason for the early determination of same sex marriage constitutionality. When it comes down to it, our society is just making it illegal for people that live their lives differently from the majority of us. It is inequitable for our government to decide on whether or not homosexuals can be married.